Good point Mike, glad to see you active and contributing!
We also see cloud price tanked good with majority if earnestness drop holding
4 Likes
One possible criteria is activity within the research.sanctum forum post.
Clearly those who stuck around and are posting/providing feedback here are sanctum Aligned.
We all want to see CLOUD grow. Both in terms of TVL and governance activity, along with its activation in the future.
5 Likes
Agreeing on the utilisation of 1% of the 30% as ASR.
Though further tweaking might be necessary and subject to the LST Launchpad coming out.
But really thought out proposal @Asimsy
4 Likes
Maybe put some tier or cap the sizing ? So the big ones don’t get too much value, the little ones can participate too.
So Yes from me but with conditions/constraints so its doesn’t get too diluted and stay interesting for everyone.
In the end, it would benefit only those who have the most token, so it’s not about earnestness here but wallet sizing. But I get the idea.
3 Likes
Interesting suggestion, maybe that could incorporated into S2 rewards?
3 Likes
3m was just a starting point, appreciate this number should be debated. Thanks
3 Likes
Not sure I would agree with punishing larger holders for the benefit of lower ones, agree that a minimum should be required.
Large holders shouldn’t be punished, linear is the fairest way
3 Likes
Interesting proposal. Love this idea.
3 Likes
Welcome to the Sanctum Research page @emdeee02 
1 Like
I think this is best proposal. It should start
2 Likes
But, because there are so many people, I would put a max cap, and then limit the cap for each user so the small ones can join as well. That it’s fair and the whales won’t eat alive the shrimps that try to boost a bit the projec and live with it.
As long as it’s fair i’m fine
1 Like
I ask for some hesitation in completely mirroring the staking mechanism for JUP.
It’s proven to be a good model with the Active Staking Rewards leading to an active DAO but JUP staking as a whole is a primitive system.
As Sanctum is about liquid staking I would be surprised if the staking mechanism is not more sophisticated and less restrictive.
I have seen some thought in this direction from WTP which could notably allow us to stake and be involved in defi: https://research.sanctum.so/t/proposal-creation-of-liquid-voting-tokens-lvts/166?u=aro
I also suggested use of initial earnestness allocation to vote : https://research.sanctum.so/t/proposal-for-staking-of-cloud-earnestness-allocation/212
You get no ASR from JUP if you’re unable to vote for whatever reason so I suggested a system that allows delegation:https://research.sanctum.so/t/delegation-of-cloud-voting-power-possible-mechanism/216?u=aro
JUP unstaking is also fixed at 30 days, in my opinion there should be more options.
I hope whatever decision the team makes is flexible and gives more freedom.
3 Likes
@Asimsy this would be amazing if this happened. great proposal mate!
2 Likes
No Regulatory exoert, but got the feeling that i’ve read somewhere in another project by having to do something to earn your rewards (ie voting like in Jup) it protects against being considered a security
1 Like
Gm and thank you for your proposal, @Asimsy!
I completely agree with your perspective. We should definitely encourage people to take an active role in Sanctum’s governance.
Voting could involve the following:
- Sanctum-verified LSTs (those to be featured in future Wonderland seasons) → This would allow the DAO to decide which projects to support or highlight through marketing efforts.
- $INF basket LFT distribution → This would enable the DAO to determine which projects receive capital allocation, within the constraints of operational needs and technical requirements that the team must define.
- Creation of Working Groups (focused on specific topics, with a dedicated team and budget) → This would allow the DAO to assist the Sanctum team in developing valuable products and promoting Solana/LST adoption globally.
To participate in voting, members would need to lock their $CLOUD tokens for a set period to prevent manipulation. Additionally, individuals with ‘Earnestnest’ allocations should be allowed to vote until they claim their rewards.
After each Wonderland season, active contributors—such as research forum members who engage in debates and drive discussions, working group members who contribute to Sanctum’s development, and voters involved in governance—should receive specific allocations similar to the ‘ASR’ or ‘Earnestnest’ models used by Jupiter or Wonderland Season 1.
5 Likes
I think forum activity if considered for rewards would be separate from ASR as to not complicate a feature that works so well for JUP.
Forum activity rewards could be seen in S2!
3 Likes
nah forum activity is a no no for me tbh, just drags im the chatgpt’ers and a load of spammers thinking they will be rewarded or it and then fudding when they don’t get what they were expecting
6 Likes
Given how the team analysed input from the community for earnestness, I don’t see how they wouldn’t be effective at rewarding genuine forum activity. But you’re right, if it’s stated then it could bring ALOT of bad actors, so less said about it the better imo
1 Like
I like 1 & 3, not sure I fully understand your 2nd suggestion though, can you explain what you mean abit more. Thanks
1 Like